Itxa/27/2009 Of The Comissioner Of Income Tax-1, Mumbai v. M/S. Essem Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

itxa27-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.27 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Essem Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr. A.K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.DATED : 9TH OCTOBER, 2012 P.C. :- 1.The appeal was admitted on 2[nd] April, 2009 on the following questions of law:- (a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee, a share broker fulfilled the conditions laid down in Section 36(2) of the I.T.A Act, 1961 ?the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee, a share broker fulfilled the conditions laid down in Section 36(2) of the I.T.A Act, 1961 ? (b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that mere non credit of gross value of the transaction entered into on behalf of the clients cannot be construed as non inclusion of income into account in the Tribunal was correct in holding that mere non credit of gross value of the transaction entered into on behalf of the clients cannot be construed as non inclusion of income into account in such transactions ignoring the fact that the amount claimed as bad debt represented not only the element of brokerage but also the principal amount of the securities which had neither accrued as income to the assessee nor had been offered for tax in earlier or current year also ignoring the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the cases of CIT V/s. Heros Publicity Services reported in 248 ITR 256 (Bom) and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court's decision in Abhay Kumar & Co. V/s. UOI & Ors. As reported in 164 ITR 148 (Raj) ? 2.Counsel for the parties state that the above questions stand answered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Shreyas Morarkha reported in [2012] 342 ITR 285 (Bom). In this view of the matter, both the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 3.The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)